SUBJECT: August 4, 2011 DOE Petition for a Site-specific One-time Variance from a Treatment

Standard under the Land Disposal Restrictions (“LDR”) Regulations

FROM: Steve Tyahia, Project Manager

RCRA Corrective Action Offi e / -- V

Waste Management Division

V

V

THRU Steve Armann, Manager

V RCRA Corrective Action Office V 7J V

Waste Management Division V V

THRU: Arlene Kabei, Associate D r V V V

Waste Management Divisi V

TO: Jeff Scott, Director

Waste Management Division V

The primary purpose ofthis memo is to obtain your approval to publicly notice a preliminary EPA

decision to approve the subject petition and initiate a 30 day public comment. Specifically, with yourapproval, I will place an ad the Las Vegas Review-Journal notifying the public of our preliminary

decision to approve the petition and initiate a 30 day public comment period, and will establish an

Administrative Record in the Federal Docket system (publicly viewable at www.regulations.gov).Additionally this memo serves as the record ofmy review ofthe petition. Based on my review ofthe

petition’s technical merit and the applicable criteria contained in the regulations, I recommend approval

ofthe petitioner’s request for a variance, subject to consideration of any public comments received.The authority for granting or denying such site-specific one-time petitions has been delegated to theDirector, Waste Management Division, EPA Region 9 as documented in EPA Region 9 Order R9

1280.18 of March 28, 1998.

On April 4, 2012 I was tasked to lead EPA’s processing and technical review ofsubject petition from

the U.S. Department ofEnergy (“DOE” or “petitioner”) for a site-specific one-time variance from the

applicable treatment standard for the future disposal oftwo radioisotope thermoelectric generators. The

two radioisotope thermoelectric generators (or “RTGs”) are currently located in a secured covered

storage area at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (“ORNL”). The

petition (Attachment 1) was submitted by SEC Federal Services Corporation on behalf of DOEpursuant to the Land Disposal Restrictions (“LDR”) regulations found at 40 C.F.R. Part 268—in

particular 40 C.F.R. § 268.44(h) “Variance from a treatment standard.”
Summary ofthe Petition: The petition seeks a one

time site

specific variance from the applicable LDR

treatment standard for disposal oftwo radioisotope thermoelectric generators (“RTGs”) which werebuilt in 1961 and are currently located at ORNL. These particular units, one a “SNAP-7C” and the

other referred to as a “Weather Bureau RTG” were built and used as long-term electrical power sources

in devices such as marine aids to navigation and weather monitoring stations. The RTGs generateelectricity directly from heat produced by the radioactive decay of Strontium-90 (half-life of 28.8

years). TF are each 19 jj s in diameter, 21 inches tall and weigh 1,764 pounds.

Each also contains 13 pounds ofmercury (used as a heat transfer medium) which is the reason they will

be hazardous waste (D009) upon disposal. Under the LDR, the treatment standard that would apply isthermal desorption and recovery ofthe mercury. The petition recommends macroencapsulation as an

alternative treatment method since the applicable standard would be inappropriate because the

recovered mercury would likely contain residual radioactive contamination making it unusable.Moreover, the RTGs need to be managed as “low level mixed waste” since they are both hazardous and

low level radioactive waste. Their ultimate disposal site will be the Nevada National Security Site

(“NNSS,” previously known as the “Nevada Test Site”) in Nye County, Nevada.

Review ofthe Petition:

1. Completeness: Per 40 C.F.R. § 268.44(i), each application for a site-specific variance from a

treatment standard must include the information in §260.20(b)(l)-(4):

(1) The petitioner’s name and address;(2) A statement ofthe petitioner’s interest in the proposed action;(3) A description ofthe proposed action, including (where appropriate) suggested regulatory

language; and

(4) A statement ofthe need and justification for the proposed action, including any supporting

tests, studies, or other information.In addition, petitions are to include the certification statement found at 40 C.F.R. § 268.44(c).

The two radioisotope thermoelectric

generators (“RTGs”)for which DOE is

seeking a variance from the LDR treatmentstandard andproposing macroencapsulation

in lieu ofthe applicable treatment ofretorting

or roasting in a thermalprocessing unit tovolatilize and recover mercury in the units.
, 

§ 

(

))

g

800 kg (

,

pou

ds) 

c

ud

g

approximately 6 kg (13 pounds or 6,000,000 mg) of liquid mercury, thus their overall mercuryconcentration is 7,500 mg/kg (or parts per million). As a point ofreference, a mere 0.2 parts per

million ofmercury in the extract of a waste subjected to the toxicity characteristic leachingprocedure (“TCLP”) would qualify the waste as a hazardous waste due to mercury (waste code

“D009”). In the “Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes” table in 40 C.F.R. § 268.40 this

type of waste would fall under the “High Mercury-Inorganic Subcategory” of D009 wastes.

The applicable treatment standard for this type of waste is “RMERC” which is defined in 40

C.F.R. § 268.42 Table 1-Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards.

The “RMERC” technology requires retorting or roasting in a thermal processing unit capable of

volatilizing mercury and subsequently condensing the volatilized mercury for recovery. This

approach is technically inappropriate for radioactively contaminated mercury-containing waste

because the recovered metals would likely contain residual radioactive contamination. As a

consequence, the recovered metals would have an extremely low probability for reuse. Inaddition, neither EPA nor DOE is aware of any commercial metals recovery facility with thecapability to handle waste mercury-containing RTGs for recycle, and DOE does not have thecapability to perform same.DOE proposes macroencapsulation as an alternative treatment for the RTGs prior to disposal at

the NNSS. As defined in 40 C.F.R. § 268.42 Table 1-Technology Codes and Descriptions of

Technology-Based Standards “MACRO” (or macroencapsulation) involves macroencapsulationwith surface coating materials such as polymeric organics (e.g., resins and plastics) or with a

jacket of inert inorganic materials to substantially reduce surface exposure to potential leaching

media. In Attachment 1 the petitioner highlights the analogous nature ofthis site-specific

petition and their June 13, 2002 petition for a generic variance for radioactively contaminated

cadmium-, mercury-, and silver-containing batteries. EPA approved that generic variance in adirect fmal rule on October 7, 2002 (Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 194, page 62618)—that

rulemaking is included as Attachment 3 and it approves macroencapsulation as the alternativetreatment for all three types ofradioactively contaminated batteries.

Recommendation: Based on my review ofthe Attachments and applicable regulations, I concur with

the petitioner that it would be technically inappropriate to treat the RTGs by the method specified as the

treatment standard (even ifit were commercially available) as it would result in the recovery ofradioactively contaminated mercury which would not be usable. Macroencapsulation ofthe entire

units, the proposed alternative treatment technology, would be appropriate and protective, is technical

ávailable,and would be performed at the ORNL. I believe this petition meets the regulatory standardsin 40 C.F.R. Part 268 and provides for a protective LDR treatment alternative. I recommend that the

variance be granted. Upon your approval, the next steps will be to publish a notice in the Las Vegas

Review-Journal newspaper and establish the federal docket for this preliminary decision. After we
Disapprove

Jeff Scott, DirectorWaste Management Division







RE: Request for Site Specific LDR Treatability Variance of 04 Aug 2012

Kevin Mitchell to: Stephen Tyahla 04/12/2012 04:46 AM

Cc: jpatterson, "'Kent DeRoos'"

Please respond to kmitchell

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Mr. Tyahla,

Thank you for reaching out and your involvement in this effort.  Responses to your questions are

embedded below.  Please let me know if you have any further questions.

______________

Kevin Mitchell

Scientific Services Manager

405 Galleria Lane, Suite D

Oxford, MS 38655

Phone:   662‐701‐7328

Email:  kmitchell@stratag.org

URL:     www.StrataG.org

From: Stephen Tyahla [mailto:Tyahla.Stephen@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:37 PM

To: kmitchell@stratag.org

Subject: Request for Site Specific LDR Treatability Variance of 04 Aug 2012

Mr. Mitchell,

I have recently been tasked with processing the subject request (copy attached). In this 

note I wanted to introduce myself and ask a few initial questions. I apologize for this 

request getting bounced around a bit, but it's now on my plate to get processed and I'll 

make sure that happens without any further unnecessary delay.

A few initial questions:

1) While seemingly obvious, can you please confirm that this is a one time request for the 

two particular RTGs?

Correct, a one time site specific request.

2) EPA Region 9 is processing this request since the disposal facility is within our region, 

Nevada (presumably the Nevada Test Site). Unless I've missed it, the attached does not 

specifically identify the proposed ultimate disposal facility or location of where the proposed 

macroencapsulation would be performed, can you please identify those?

The proposed disposal facility is the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS).  Macroencapsulation will be

performed/confirmed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is the current location of the RTGs.

3) Do you have photographs of the two RTGs that you can provide?
Yes. Photo included below.

4) Can you generally describe where the RTGs are now being stored? 

The two RTGs are currently stored at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, TN.  They

are stored outdoors behind a locked fence for security reasons with general institutional controls in

place at ORNL.  See below for picture of storage area.

5) Is there any particular time sensitivity with the present storage of the RTGs?

The RTG’s have been in storage outside of Building 3517 at ORNL for ~40 years. Building 3517 is

scheduled for demolition under the Bethel Valley CERCLA ROD and the disposal of the RTG’s are included

in that scope.  Removal and disposal of the RTG’s is also necessary to reindustrialize/revitalize the

central campus area of ORNL.

6) Please confirm that the attached includes the entire 4 August 2011 request (just being 

certain).

Yes, the attached includes the entire request.

Thanks,

Stephen F. Tyahla, P.E.,CHMM

Project Manager, RCRA Corrective Action Office

Waste Management Division

U.S. EPA Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street (WST-5)
San Francisco, CA 94105

Ph. 415.972.3466 / Fax 415.947.3533

tyahla.stephen@epa.gov

[This email, including any attachments, may contain non-public, privileged and/or 

confidential information solely intended to be conveyed to the designated recipient(s). If 

you receive this email and are not an intended recipient, please delete this email and its 

attachments immediately. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or 

reproduction of this email and its attachments is strictly prohibited by law.] =

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED 

*******************

This Email message contained an attachment named 

 image001.jpg 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program 

could

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's 

computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted.

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses 

introduced

into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program 

attachments

sent from the Internet into the agency via Email.

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, 

you

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file 

name

extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. 

After

receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, 

you can

rename the file extension to its correct name.

For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900.

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED 

***********************
62618 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 268 and 271 

[FRL–7390–7; Docket Number: RCRA–2002–

0027] 

RIN 2050–AE99

Land Disposal Restrictions: National 

Treatment Variance To Designate New 

Treatment Subcategories for 

Radioactively Contaminated

Cadmium-, Mercury-, and SilverContaining Batteries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to grant a national treatability 

variance from the Land Disposal 

Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards 

for radioactively contaminated 

cadmium-, mercury-, and silvercontaining batteries by designating new 

treatment subcategories for these wastes 

in response to a rulemaking petition 

from the Department of Energy. The 

current treatment standards of thermal 

recovery for cadmium batteries and of 

roasting and retorting for mercury 

batteries are technically inappropriate, 

because any recovered metals would 

likely contain residual radioactive 

contamination and not be usable. The 

current numerical treatment standard 

for silver batteries is also inappropriate 

because of the potential increase in 

radiation exposure to workers 

associated with manually segregating 

silver-containing batteries for the 

purpose of treatment. 

Macroencapsulation in accordance with 

the provisions for treatment standards 

for hazardous debris is designated as the 

required treatment prior to land 

disposal for the new waste 

subcategories. This will allow safe 

disposal of these radioactively 

contaminated materials.

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 21, 2002 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by November 6, 2002. If we 

receive such comment, we will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that this 

rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted electronically, by mail, or 

through hand/delivery/courier. You 

must send an original and two copies of 

the comments referencing Docket 

Number RCRA–2002–0027 to: EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), B102, EPA 

West, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460–0002. Follow 

the detailed instructions as provided in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

I. D. below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information, call the RCRA Call 

Center at 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1–

800–553–7672 (hearing impaired). 

Callers within the Washington 

Metropolitan Area must dial 703–412–

9810 or TDD 703–412–3323 (hearing 

impaired). The RCRA Call Center is 

open Monday-Friday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Eastern Standard Time. For more 

information on specific aspects of this 

direct final rule, contact Mr. John 

Austin at 703–308–0436, 

austin.john@epa.gov, or write him at the 

Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U.S. EPA, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The contents of the preamble to this 

final are listed in the following outline:

I. General Information 

A. Regulated Entities 

B. Direct Final Action 

C. How Can I Get Copies of This Document 

and Other Related Information? 

D. How and To Whom Do I Submit 

Comments? 

E. How Should I Submit CBI to the 

Agency? 

F. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

II. Background 

What Is the Basis for LDR Treatment 

Variances? 

III. Why Are the Existing Standards 

Inappropriate? 

A. What Are the Wastes That Require a 

Treatment Variance? 

B. What Are the New Treatment 

Standards? 

IV. State Authority 

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized 

States 

B. Effect on State Authorization 

V. Regulatory Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Children’s 

Health 

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

J. Executive Order 12898: Environmental 

Justice 

K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information 

A. Regulated Entities 

Entities potentially regulated by this 

action are those which generate, treat, 

and dispose radioactive batteries. 

Regulated categories and entities 

include:

Category .................... Radioactively contaminated cadmium-, mercury-, 

and silver- containing batteries. 

Industry .................... Nuclear waste generators, and treatment and disposal 

facilities. 

Examples of regulated entities.Envirocare of Utah, 

Inc.; Nevada Test 

Site; and the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. 

Federal Agencies ...... Department of Energy. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

regulated. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Direct Final Action 

EPA is publishing this rule without a 

prior proposal because we view it as a 

noncontroversial action. We anticipate 

no adverse comment because of the 

limited nature of this action. Having 

said this, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of today’s Federal Register

publication, we are publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to grant the designation of a 

new treatment subcategory if adverse 

comments are filed. This direct final 

rule will be effective on November 21, 

2002 without further notice unless we 

receive adverse comment by November 

6, 2002. If we receive significant adverse 

comment on this rulemaking, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register indicating that this 

direct final rule action is being 

withdrawn due to adverse comment. We 

will then address all public comments, 

as appropriate. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this rulemaking must do so at this 

time. 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 62619

C. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. RCRA–2002–0027. 

The official public docket consists of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this action, any public comments 

received, and other information related 

to this action. Although a part of the 

official docket, the public docket does 

not include Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

The official public docket is the 

collection of materials that is available 

for public viewing at the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), B102, EPA West, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0002. The EPA/DC is open from 

9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. To 

review file materials, we recommend 

that you make an appointment by 

calling (202) 566–0270. You may copy 

a maximum of 100 pages from any file 

maintained at the RCRA Docket at no 

charge. Additional copies cost $0.15 per 

page. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the Federal Register listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/

to submit or view public comments, 

access the index listing of the contents 

of the official public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. 

Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’

then key in the appropriate docket 

identification number. 

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA Dockets. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA’s 

policy is that copyrighted material will 

not be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. To the extent feasible, publicly 

available docket materials will be made 

available in EPA’s electronic public 

docket. When a document is selected 

from the index list in EPA Dockets, the 

system will identify whether the 

document is available for viewing in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

Although not all docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

docket materials at the EPA/DC. 

For public commenters, it is 

important to note that EPA’s policy is 

that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing in EPA’s electronic public 

docket as EPA receives them and 

without change, unless the comment 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. When EPA 

identifies a comment containing 

copyrighted material, EPA will provide 

a reference to that material in the 

version of the comment that is placed in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. The 

entire printed comment, including the 

copyrighted material, will be available 

in the public docket. 

Public comments submitted on 

computer disks that are mailed or 

delivered to the docket will be 

transferred to EPA’s electronic public 

docket. Public comments that are 

mailed or delivered to the Docket will 

be scanned and placed in EPA’s 

electronic public docket. Where 

practical, physical objects will be 

photographed, and the photograph will 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket along with a brief description 

written by the docket staff. 

D. How and to Whom Do I Submit 

Comments? 

You may submit comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier. To ensure proper 

receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 

docket identification number in the 

subject line on the first page of your 

comment. Please ensure that your 

comments are submitted within the 

specified comment period. Comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not 

required to consider these late 

comments. Do not use EPA Dockets or 

e-mail to submit CBI or information 

protected by statute. 

1. Electronically. If you submit an 

electronic comment as prescribed 

below, EPA recommends that you 

include your name, mailing address, 

and an e-mail address or other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment. Also include this contact 

information on the outside of any disk 

or CD ROM you submit, and in any 

cover letter accompanying the disk or 

CD ROM. This ensures that you can be 

identified as the submitter of the 

comment and allows EPA to contact you 

in case EPA cannot read your comment 

due to technical difficulties or needs 

further information on the substance of 

your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA 

will not edit your comment, and any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket, 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA’s 

electronic public docket to submit 

comments to EPA electronically is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets 

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. To access EPA’s 

electronic public docket from the EPA 

Internet Home Page, select ‘‘Information 

Sources,’’ ‘‘Dockets,’’ and ‘‘EPA 

Dockets.’’ Once in the system, select 

‘‘search,’’ and then key in Docket ID No. 

RCRA–2002–0027. The system is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity, 

e-mail address, or other contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. 

ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to rcradocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. RCRA–2002–0027. In contrast to 

EPA’s electronic public docket, EPA’s email system is not an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to the Docket without 

going through EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s e-mail system 

automatically captures your e-mail 

address. E-mail addresses that are 

automatically captured by EPA’s e-mail 

system are included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the official 

public docket, and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit 

comments on a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to the mailing address 

identified in the following section. 

These electronic submissions will be 

accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file 

format. Avoid the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption. 

2. By Mail. You must send an original 

and two copies of the comments 

referencing Docket Number RCRA–

2002–0027 to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/

DC), B102, EPA West, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0002. 

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. 

Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), B102, EPA West, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0002, Attention Docket ID No. 

RCRA–2002–0027. Deliveries are only 

62620 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. 

E. How Should I Submit CBI to the 

Agency? 

Do not submit information 

electronically that you consider to be 

CBI through EPA’s electronic public 

docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the 

following address: RCRA CBI Document 

Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste 

(5305W), U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. RCRA–2002–0027. You 

may claim information that you submit 

to EPA as CBI by marking any part or 

all of that information as CBI (if you 

submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is CBI). Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

In addition to one complete version of 

the comment that includes any 

information claimed as CBI, a copy of 

the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket and EPA’s electronic public 

docket. If you submit the copy that does 

not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and EPA’s 

electronic public docket without prior 

notice. If you have any questions about 

CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

F. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

You may find the following 

suggestions helpful for preparing your 

comments: 

1. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

2. Describe any assumptions that you 

used. 

3. Provide any technical information 

and/or data you used that support your 

views. 

4. If you estimate potential burden or 

costs, explain how you arrived at your 

estimate. 

5. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns. 

6. Offer alternatives. 

7. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

identify the appropriate docket 

identification number in the subject line 

on the first page of your response. It 

would also be helpful if you provided 

the name, date, and Federal Register

citation related to your comments. 

II. Background

What Is the Basis for LDR Treatment 

Variances? 

Under section 3004(m) of the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA), EPA is required to set 

‘‘levels or methods of treatment, if any, 

which substantially diminish the 

toxicity of the waste or substantially 

reduce the likelihood of migration of 

hazardous constituents from the waste 

so that short-term and long-term threats 

to human health and the environment 

are minimized.’’ EPA interprets this 

language to authorize treatment 

standards based on the performance of 

best demonstrated available technology 

(BDAT). This interpretation was upheld 

by the D.C. Circuit in Hazardous Waste 

Treatment Council vs. EPA, 886 F. 2d 

355 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 

The Agency recognizes that there may 

be wastes that cannot be treated to 

levels specified in the regulations (see 

40 CFR 268.40) because an individual 

waste matrix or concentration can be 

substantially more difficult to treat than 

those wastes the Agency evaluated in 

establishing the treatment standard (51 

FR 40576, November 7, 1986), or that it 

may be inappropriate to require the 

waste to be treated to the level specified 

or by the method specified, even though 

such treatment is technically possible. 

For such wastes, EPA has a process by 

which a generator or treater may seek a 

treatment variance (see 40 CFR 268.44). 

Treatment variances may be generic 

(under 40 CFR 268.44(a)) or site-specific 

(under 40 CFR 268.44(h)). A generic 

variance can result in the establishment 

of a new treatability group and a 

corresponding treatment standard that 

applies to all wastes that meet the 

criteria of the new waste treatability 

group (55 FR 22526, June 1, 1990). A 

site-specific variance applies only to a 

specific waste from a specific facility. 

On June 13, 2002, the Department of 

Energy (DOE) petitioned EPA pursuant 

to 40 CFR 268.44 for a generic 

treatability variance for mercury-, 

cadmium-, and silver-containing 

batteries that are contaminated with 

radioactive materials. The petition is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

III. Why Are the Existing Standards 

Inappropriate? 

A. What Are the Wastes That Require a 

Treatment Variance? 

Batteries are used in a variety of ways 

across the DOE complex. For example, 

nickel-cadmium (NiCd) rechargeable 

batteries are commonly found in 

cellular and cordless telephones, 2-way 

radios, video cameras, portable power 

tools, laptop computers, and 

radiological monitoring equipment. 

Mercury-containing and silvercontaining batteries have been widely 

used in watches, calculators, and 

cameras. When these batteries reach end 

of life, they are typically classified as 

radioactive waste if they were used in 

a radioactively contaminated area, 

unless through decontamination and/or 

radiological surveys they can be cleared 

for management as non-radiological 

waste. Sometimes because of cracks, 

fissures, holes or uneven surfaces in the 

battery casings, a reasonable confidence 

level that the batteries are free of 

radioactive contamination cannot be 

achieved. In other cases, radioactive 

contamination is found that cannot be 

easily removed. In either case, there will 

always be some batteries that are 

deemed to be radioactively 

contaminated. 

Based on input from individual 

facilities, DOE estimates that 2,653 kg of 

radioactively contaminated waste 

cadmium-containing batteries, and 247 

kg of radioactively contaminated waste 

mercury-containing batteries are in 

storage across the complex. No estimate 

is available for silver-containing 

batteries. Projected generation rates are 

23 kg/yr for radioactively contaminated 

waste cadmium batteries and 4 kg/yr for 

radioactively contaminated waste 

mercury batteries. 

The cadmium-containing waste 

batteries are almost all NiCd batteries, 

although other types of cadmiumcontaining waste batteries such as 

mercury-cadmium and silver-cadmium 

may be present as well. At a minimum, 

all of the cadmium-containing waste 

batteries exhibit the toxicity 

characteristic for cadmium and carry a 

D006 hazardous waste code. 

Detail on the specific types of 

mercury-containing waste batteries 

present is limited, but it is assumed that 

this waste stream includes both 

mercury-zinc and mercury-cadmium 

batteries. At a minimum, these batteries 

exhibit the toxicity characteristic for 

mercury and carry a D009 hazardous 

waste code. Detail on specific types of 

silver-containing waste batteries is also 

limited. They may be silver-cadmium or 

of other composition. At a minimum, 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 62621

1Although today’s rule is granted through the 40 

CFR 268.44 variance process, the Agency has 

determined that the new standards are neither more 

nor less stringent than the current standards. This 

is because today’s rule offers a different technical 

approach (macoencapsulation) over the current 

technical approaches of recovery and stabilization.

these batteries exhibit the toxicity 

characteristic for silver and carry a D011 

hazardous waste code. 

While not representing a large volume 

of waste, radioactively contaminated 

cadmium-, mercury-, and silvercontaining batteries, which must be 

managed as mixed waste (i.e., RCRA 

hazardous and radioactive), present an 

ongoing waste disposal problem for 

several sites in the DOE complex. This 

situation has developed because the 

existing applicable LDR treatment 

standards are inappropriate, as 

explained below. Moreover, neither EPA 

nor DOE is aware of any commercial 

metals recovery facility that currently 

accepts radioactively contaminated 

cadmium-, or mercury-containing waste 

batteries for treatment. 

B. What Are the New Treatment 

Standards? 

Under existing land disposal 

restriction (LDR) treatment standards, 

cadmium-containing waste batteries are 

classified as D006 Cadmium Containing 

Batteries Subcategory waste. As such, 

they are subject to the specified 

technology of RTHRM (thermal recovery 

of metals). Most mercury-containing 

waste batteries are classified as D009 

High Mercury-Inorganic Subcategory 

waste because they are inorganic, 

exhibit the toxicity characteristic for 

mercury (under 40 CFR 261.24(b)), and 

contain greater than 260 ppm total 

mercury. As such, they are subject to the 

specified technology of RMERC 

(roasting/retorting with recovery of 

mercury). In both cases, the objective of 

the specified technology is to volatilize 

the metals in a high temperature 

treatment unit and subsequently 

condense and collect them for reuse, 

while significantly reducing the 

concentration of metals in the waste 

residual. This approach is technically 

inappropriate for radioactively 

contaminated cadmium- and mercurycontaining batteries, because the 

recovered metals would likely contain 

residual radioactive contamination. As a 

consequence, the recovered metals 

would have an extremely low 

probability for reuse. 

For silver-containing batteries that are 

D011, the existing LDR treatment 

standards require treatment to meet 

numerical constituent concentration 

levels for silver and any underlying 

hazardous constituents. Meeting these 

standards could involve manually 

segregating the silver-containing 

batteries from commingled waste 

batteries before treatment, which could 

entail increased worker exposure to 

radiation and result in the generation of 

larger volumes of radioactively 

contaminated waste for disposal. 

As a result, we intend to grant a 

national treatment variance by 

designation of new treatment 

subcategories for these materials. We 

believe that the appropriate treatment 

standard is macroencapsulation in 

accordance with the design and 

operating standards of 40 CFR 268.45. 

Macroencapsulation of debris is defined 

at 40 CFR 268.45 Table 1 as: 

Application of surface coating 

materials such as polymeric organics 

(e.g., resins and plastics) or use of a 

jacket of inert inorganic materials to 

substantially reduce surface exposure to 

potential leaching media. 

The design and operating standard 

requires that the encapsulating material 

must completely encapsulate the waste 

and be resistant to degradation by the 

debris and its contaminants and 

materials into which it may come into 

contact after placement (e.g., leachate, 

other waste, or microbes). 

Encapsulation technologies are 

applicable primarily to wastes 

containing hazardous metal 

constituents. Macroencapsulation is the 

required treatment for D008 radioactive 

lead solids subcategory wastes and K175 

mercury-bearing wastes. 

Macroencapsulation is also an 

alternative treatment standard for 

hazardous debris. We believe that 

macroencapsulation is appropriate for 

these radioactively contaminated 

batteries, because it would require 

minimal worker handling and reduce 

the potential for leaching media to 

contact the batteries following disposal. 

Thus, macroencapsulation would 

minimize worker exposure to 

radioactivity and the potential for 

release, which we wish to encourage. 

IV. State Authority 

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized 

States 

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA 

may authorize a qualified State to 

administer and enforce a hazardous 

waste program within the State in lieu 

of the federal program, and to issue and 

enforce permits in the State. A State 

may receive authorization by following 

the approval process described under 40 

CFR 271.21. See 40 CFR part 271 for the 

overall standards and requirements for 

authorization. EPA continues to have 

independent authority to bring 

enforcement actions under RCRA 

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. An 

authorized State also continues to have 

independent authority to bring 

enforcement actions under State law.

After a State receives initial 

authorization, new Federal 

requirements promulgated under RCRA 

authority existing prior to the 1984 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in 

that State until the State adopts and 

receives authorization for equivalent 

State requirements. In contrast, under 

RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 

6926(g)), new Federal requirements and 

prohibitions promulgated pursuant to 

HSWA provisions take effect in 

authorized States at the same time that 

they take effect in unauthorized States. 

As such, EPA carries out HSWA 

requirements and prohibitions in 

authorized States, including the 

issuance of new permits implementing 

those requirements, until EPA 

authorizes the State to do so. 

Authorized States are required to 

modify their programs when EPA 

promulgates Federal requirements that 

are more stringent or broader in scope 

than existing Federal requirements. 

RCRA section 3009 allows the States to 

impose standards more stringent than 

those in the Federal program. See also 

§ 271.1(i). Therefore, authorized States 

are not required to adopt Federal 

regulations, both HSWA and nonHSWA, that are considered less 

stringent than existing Federal 

requirements. 

B. Effect on State Authorization 

The requirements of today’s rule, in 

EPA’s view, are neither more nor less 

stringent than current regulatory 

requirements.1 Therefore, when 

promulgated, the Agency will add the 

rule to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which 

identifies the Federal program 

requirements that are promulgated 

pursuant to HSWA. Although States are 

only required to adopt requirements that 

are more stringent than the existing 

provisions, EPA strongly encourages 

States to adopt the provisions of today’s 

rule.

V. Regulatory Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

62622 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

It has been determined that this rule 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq. 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, a small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that has fewer than 1000 or 100 

employees per firm depending upon the 

SIC code the firm primarily is classified; 

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000; 

and (3) a small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

This rule is not expected to result in 

a net cost to any affected entity. Thus, 

adverse impacts are not anticipated. 

Costs could increase for entities that are 

not complying with current 

requirements, but even these costs, 

which are not properly attributable to 

the current rulemaking, would not be 

expected to result in significant impacts 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not change in any way 

the paperwork requirements already 

applicable to radioactive cadmium-, 

mercury-, or silver-containing batteries. 

Therefore, it does not affect 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

D. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on state, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for the proposed and final 

rules with ‘‘federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. 

Before promulgating a rule for which 

a written statement is needed, section 

205 of the UMRA generally requires 

EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. 

Before EPA establishes any regulatory 

requirements that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

including tribal governments, it must 

have developed under section 203 of the 

UMRA a small government agency plan. 

The plan must provide for notifying 

potentially affected small governments, 

enable officials of affected small 

governments to have meaningful and 

timely input in the development of EPA 

regulatory proposals with significant 

federal intergovernmental mandates, 

and informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

The Agency’s analysis of compliance 

with the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (UMRA) of 1995 found that today’s 

rule imposes no enforceable duty on any 

state, local or tribal government or the 

private sector. This rule contains no 

federal mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

state, local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. In addition, EPA has 

determined that this rule contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Because we consider 

today’s rule to be neither more nor less 

stringent than the current regulations, 

state governments are not required to 

adopt the proposed changes. The UMRA 

generally excludes from the definition 

of ‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’

duties that arise from participation in a 

voluntary federal program. The UMRA 

also excludes from the definition of 

‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’ duties 

that arise from participation in a 

voluntary federal program. Therefore, 

we have determined that today’s rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because states 

are not required to adopt the provisions 

of this rule. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 62623

Executive Order 13175, because it does 

not preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Children’s 

Health 

‘‘Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

applies to any rule that EPA determines 

(1) ‘‘economically significant’’ as 

defined under Executive Order 12866, 

and (2) concerns an environmental 

health or safety risk that EPA has reason 

to believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. If the regulatory 

action meets both criteria, the Agency 

must evaluate the environmental health 

or safety effects of the planned rule on 

children and explain why the planned 

regulation is preferable to other 

potential effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. This final rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

an economically significant rule as 

defined by Executive Order 12866, and 

because the Agency does not have 

reason to believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. When the subject wastes are 

treated and disposed in accordance with 

this regulation, the Agency believes that 

future risks to the human health and the 

environment will be minimized.

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy 

Effects 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Effect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, though OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. This 

rule does not establish new technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations’’ (February 11, 

1994) is designed to address the 

environmental and human health 

conditions of minority and low-income 

populations. EPA is committed to 

addressing environmental justice 

concerns and has assumed a leadership 

role in environmental justice initiatives 

to enhance environmental quality for all 

citizens of the United States. The 

Agency’s goals are to ensure that no 

segment of the population, regardless of 

race, color, national origin, income, or 

net worth bears disproportionately high 

and adverse human health and 

environmental impacts as a result of 

EPA’s policies, programs, and activities. 

In response to Executive Order 12898, 

EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response (OSWER) formed 

an Environmental Justice Task Force to 

analyze the array of environmental 

justice issues specific to waste programs 

and to develop an overall strategy to 

identify and address these issues 

(OSWER Directive No. 9200.3–17). 

Facilities that would be affected by 

today’s rule include any facility 

generating hazardous radioactive 

cadmium, radioactive mercury, or 

radioactive silver batteries for treatment 

or disposal. The Agency does not 

believe that today’s rule will result in 

any disproportionately negative impacts 

on minority or low-income communities 

relative to affluent or non-minority 

communities, because today’s rule will 

facilitate the removal of the subject 

hazardous wastes from current 

generation sites for treatment and 

controlled disposal to ensure protection 

of human health and the environment. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective 45 days following the 

publication.

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 268

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous material transportation, 

Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control, 

Water supply.

Dated: September 30, 2002. 

Christine Todd Whitman, 

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL 

RESTRICTIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 268 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 

and 6924.

2. In § 268.40, the Table, ‘‘Treatment 

Standards for Hazardous Wastes’’ is 

amended by adding entries to the end of 

entries D006, D009, and D011 to read as 

follows. The footnotes are republished 

without change.

§ 268.40 Applicability of treatment standards.

* * * * *

62624 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES

Waste code Waste description and treatment/Regulatory subcategory1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters: 

Concentration 

in mg/L,3 or 

technology 

code 4

Nonwastewaters: Concentration in mg/kg 5 unless 

noted as ‘‘mg/L TCLP’’, or 

technology code. Common name CAS 4 2 No. 

* * * * * * * 

D006 9 .............. *****

Radioactively contaminated cadmium 

containing batteries. (Note: This subcategory consists of nonwastewaters 

only) 

Cadmium ............ 7440–43–9 NA Macroencapsulation in accordance with 40 CFR 

268.45. 

* * * * * * * 

D009 9 .............. *****

Radioactively contaminated mercury 

containing batteries. (Note: This subcategory consists of nonwastewaters 

only) 

Mercury .............. 7439–97–6 NA Macroencapsulation in accordance with 40 CFR 

268.45. 

* * * * * * * 

D011 9 .............. *****

Radioactively contaminated silver containing batteries. (Note: This subcategory consists of nonwastewaters 

only) 

Silver .................. 7440–22–4 NA Macroencapsulation in accordance with 40 CFR 

268.45. 

* * * * * * * 

Footnotes to Treatment Standard Table 268.40

1The waste descriptions provided in this table do not replace waste descriptions in 40 CFR part 261. Descriptions of Treatment/Regulatory 

Subcategories are provided, as needed, to distinguish between applicability of different standards. 2 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical 

with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. 3 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L and are based on analysis of composite samples. 

4All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in detail in 40 CFR 268.42 

Table 1—Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards. 5Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration 

were established, in part, based upon incineration in units opeated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart 

O, or Part 265, Subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A 

facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters 

are based on analysis of grab samples. 

* * * * * * * 

9These wastes, when rendered nonhazardous and then subsequently injected in a Class I SDWA well, are not subject to treatment standards. 

(See § 148.1(d)). 

* * * * * * * 

PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS 

3. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.

4. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entries to Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication 

to read as follows.

§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984 

Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date 

* * * * * * * 

Sept. 30, 2002 ..................... Land Disposal Restrictions: National Treatment Variance 

to Designate New Treatment Subcategories for Radioactively Contaminated Cadmium-, Mercury-, and Silver-Containing Batteries.

[Insert Federal Register citation page numbers].November 21, 2002 

* * * * * * * 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 62625

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 02–25414 Filed 10–4–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P